October 24, 2012

The National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP)
hosted its 8th annual educational conference October 16-19, 2012 in New
Orleans with a record number of attendees consisting of transfer
company executives and staff, in-house and outside legal counsel,
investors, service providers and, for the first time, primary market
participants.

NASP President Matthew Bracy set the conference theme by challenging speakers and attendees to continue to improve the structured settlement secondary market: "We
have some of the brightest minds in the country assembled here to
discuss the status of this industry and how to improve what we do. And,
as is our habit, we have invited people who might have critical things
to say about how we are doing and what we can do better. Improvement can
only come from the honest and sometimes harsh assessment of outside
critics."

One of those critics was keynote speakerJan Schlictmann who called out "cash now" advertizing as a "primitive denomination".
Schlichtmann's broader message echoed Bracy's theme of bettering
oneself through self-criticism and the need for higher industry goals. "It is not just who we serve that matters, but how we serve",
Schlictmann stated. Schlictmann reviewed his client experience with
structured settlements and acknowledged a personal paradigm shift
resulting from recent industry developments including low interest rates
and the ELNY liquidation.

The Judges Panel has become a regular and popular feature of NASP educational conferences. Moderator Earl Nesbitt encouraged this year's panel members, Judge Patricia Wise, Chancery Court Judge, Hinds County, Mississippi and Judge Dean Lum,
Superior Court for King County, Washington, to share their concerns
about structured settlement transfers and their advice for transfer
company representatives and attorneys. Selectedhighlights:

Judge Wise: "We
(Mississippi judges) have a good relationship with transfer attorneys. I
don't look at transfers as inherently good or bad. I don't have any
preconceived notion whether to approve or disapprove."

Judge Lum: "It
is not my job to talk someone into or out of a transfer. Judges,
however, think about the worst case scenario - a recipient who has just
turned 18. The closer to this worst case scenario, the more scrutiny a
person receives."

Judge Wise: "What judges are
looking for is credibility and what structured settlement payees say
they will do with the funds. We do focus on whether prior transfers have
occurred. Also, the older the payee, the more likely they have the
ability to make a good decision."

Judge Lum: "Attorneys
should prepare the structured settlement payee for his or her court
appearance - how to dress and behave; how the best interest test
applies; what the impact will be on dependents."

Judge Lum: "We
have a saying in King County: 'there is no party like ex parte'. In
unopposed cases, people try to run things by you. Its kind of like the
wild west. In unopposed cases, it is important for attorneys to go the
extra mile. Your reputation matters. There are two degrees of separation
in the legal profession."

Another regular and popular feature of NASP educational conferences are the small group break out sessions. The individual breakout sessions S2KM attended addressed participants' state-specific experience with:

Court Approval Issues - judicial negotiation of discount rates; the meaning of full disclosure; statutory history of the "best interest"
test; independent professional advisor qualifications and fees;
transfer application exhibits; and the importance of judicial education.

The NASP conference doubled down on underwriting issues with an informative presentation about "Life Contingent Transactions" by NASP President-elect Patricia LaBorde.
LaBorde, who also served as Chairperson for the 2012 NASP conference
and was credited with upgrading the NASP website, discussed the two
paths for funding life contingent transactions:

Purchasing a life insurance policy to hedge against the risk of an early annuitant death; or

Evaluating the risk and pricing the risk into the transaction.

Jack Kelly, a federal lobbyist who assisted NASP in securing enactment of IRC 5891 in 2002, provided a Legislative Update. Kelly summarized NASP's 2012 involvement with legislative proposals in Vermont, Minnesota and New Hampshire. Vermont, in 2012, became the 48th state to enact a structured settlement protection statute. The new Vermont statute
is generally based upon the NCOIL Model Act with some variations
related to independent professional advisors, notice requirements for
certain state agencies and the required court appearance by the
structured settlement payee.

Earl Nesbitt, NASP's Executive Director and General Counsel, presented the 2012 Litigation Update. Among several important court decisions, Nesbitt highlighted the Stone Street v. McClendon case which he characterized as an "important victory"
for NASP and the structured settlement industry in general. In
McClendon, a Louisiana state court found that Travelers Insurance and
MetLife had no grounds for withholding payments following a valid
transfer of payment rights pursuant to the Louisiana structured
settlement protection statute. The court ordered MetLife to pay interest from the date the payments were originally due. Note: S2KM will publish a more detailed review of the McClendon case in a subsequent blog post.

In his "Primary Market Update", Mark Wahlstrom
emphasized why the primary and secondary structured settlement markets
are part of the same business. He called the primary market "the secondary market's best friend" despite the primary market's criticism of, and "needless obstacles" for, the secondary market. As one example of "needless obstacles", Wahlstrom mentioned Chartis for aggressively promoting an anti-factoring pledge among its structured settlement brokers.

Wahlstrom described 2012 as "another bad year for the primary market". He characterized declines in primary market annuity premium as a "negativetrendthat will eventually impact the secondary market" and identified the following causes:

The structured settlement is an insular, closed community with aging leadership and a shrinking sales force.

Elizabeth Yingling, a securities law expert, discussed "Implications of Federal and States Securities Laws on Structured Settlements". She addressed fundamental issues such as: What statutes
govern securities? What is a "security"? What is an "investment
contract"? and How do promotional materials impact the analysis? In addition,
Yingling offered a detailed analysis of the "Howey test" and provided practical tips.

Alexander Hamilton Award

NASP also named S2KM blog author, Patrick Hindert, as the 2012 recipient of its Alexander Hamilton Award. NASP has bestowed this award five times "to
distinguished individuals who have supported and defended the right to
free alienability of property rights. This right is the corner stone of
NASP and the foundation of the structured settlement factoring
business." Previous Alexander Hamilton Award recipients:

State Senator Alan Sanborn of Michigan.

U.S. Representative Eric Cantor of Virginia.

State Representative Van Tran of California.

Earl S. Nesbitt, Esq., of Texas.

In announcing the 2012 award, NASP President Matt Bracy stated:"Hindert
was chosen to receive this award based upon his longstanding support of
the factoring business and option. In particular, his position as a
founder and leader in the primary structured settlement business, who
early on recognized the legitimacy and value of the secondary market,
led to this honor."

For complete S2KM reporting on NASP conferences plus other structured settlement and settlement planning conferences, see the structured settlement wiki.

December 14, 2011

Acting as agent for the Receiver of Executive Life Insurance Company of New York (ELNY), the New York Liquidation Bureau (NYLB) mailed letters (shortfall letters) on December 7, 2011 to many individual ELNY structured settlement annuity (SSA) payees notifying them about the proposed ELNY liquidation and restructuring agreement as well as the amount of their anticipated shortfalls.

The ELNY shortfall letters also encourage ELNY SSA payees with anticipated shortfalls to contact their ELNY SSA owner "who may be responsible for supplemental payments, depending upon the terms of the structured settlement agreement, to the extent full payments are not made under the Restructuring Agreement."

Many SSA recipients of the NYLB letters are understandably confused because their annuity contracts identify "First Executive Corporation" (FEC) as the owner of their SSAs. Unfortunately for these ELNY payees and their beneficiaries, FEC declared bankruptcy in 1991 and no longer exists. For a background summary about the rise and fall and ultimate bankruptcy of FEC, see this prior S2KM blog post.

To help SSA recipients of the NYLB shortfall letters better understand their situation, this blog post explains the difference between two alternative methods utilized to fund ELNY SSAs:

Here is a graphic comparison of the "buy and hold" and qualified assignment financing alternatives, courtesy of The Settlement Services Group (TSSG), as set forth in Chapter 3 of "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" (S2P2J). Note: Patrick Hindert, author of "Beyond Structured Settlements", is also Managing Director of TSSG and co-author of S2P2J.

Annuity Financing ("Buy and Hold")

As defined in S2P2J, “ 'annuity financing' [buy and hold] means that a defendant or its liability insurer (the 'obligor') (1) gives the claimant an unfunded, unsecured promise to pay money in the future and (2) purchases and owns an annuity to provide a source of funds to meet this obligation."

Applied to ELNY, the owner of the annuity (defendant or its liability insurer) is the obligor and, if ELNY cannot pay, then the owner is obligated to make the periodic payments or make up the difference.

S2P2J further explains the rights and duties of the parties resulting from annuity financing:

"In exchange for a release from tort liability, the obligor promises to make periodic payments to the claimant and purchases an annuity to provide a source of funds to meet this obligation.

"The obligor owns the annuity, and as such, retains all incidents of annuity ownership, including the right to change the payee of annuity benefits. Of its own volition, the obligor directs that annuity benefits be paid by the annuity issuer to the claimant.

"The claimant has the right to receive periodic payments as due and may rely only on the general credit of the obligor for the collection of such payments. The claimant does not have rights in any property or investments owned by the obligor that are greater than rights of the obligor’s other general creditors.

"The claimant has no express rights against the annuity issuer because there is no privity of contract between them. Nonetheless, the claimant receives annuity benefits directly from the annuity issuer, and has no reason to complain to the obligor as long as the benefits are received as promised."

Qualified Assignment

As defined in S2P2J, “ 'qualified assignment' means that the defendant or its liability insurer (1) first gives the claimant a promise to pay money in the future; (2) then transfers that obligation to a substituted obligor pursuant to [Internal Revenue Code] Section 130; and (3) thus extinguishes its contractual liability for the obligation so transferred."

Applied to ELNY, the substituted obligor/assignee/annuity owner is FEC and, assuming the qualified assignment complied with all of the statutory requirements, the original obligor/assignor (defendant or liability insurer) thereby extinguished (or intended to extinguish) its contractual liability for the transferred periodic payment obligation.

S2P2J further explains the rights and duties of the parties resulting from a qualified assignment:

"In exchange for a release from tort liability, the defendant or its liability insurer or both (the 'assignor') promise to make specified periodic payments to the claimant.

"The claimant agrees to discharge the assignor’s duty provided an acceptable new obligor (an 'assignee') promises to make the periodic payments to the claimant.

"The assignee makes this promise to the claimant, the claimant accepts the assignee’s promise, and the assignor’s duty is discharged.

"For qualified assignments entered into on or before November 10, 1988: The claimant has the right to receive periodic payments as due and may rely only on the general credit of the assignee for the collection of the payments. The claimant does not have rights in any property or investments owned by the assignee that are greater than rights of the assignee’s other general creditors."

Note: because of a change in the tax law, for qualified assignments entered into after November 10, 1988, claimants may have a security interest in property owned by the substituted obligor without jeopardizing the tax-free status of the promised payments. If applicable to specific ELNY SSA payees, such a security interest could raise interesting legal issues because FEC also owed Executive Life of California (ELIC).

So what should ELNY SSA payees who received NYLB shortfall letters do?

First, they should try to locate copies of their annuity contracts, settlement agreements and, if applicable, qualified assignment agreements. If they have not personally retained these documents, they might try contacting:

The attorney who represented them in their original lawsuit; or

The structured settlement agent who helped purchase their annuity from ELNY; or

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company which has been administering ELNY annuities since 1991.

Second, they should retain legal counsel to review their documents and recommend options keeping in mind:

The January 16, 2012 deadline (Martin Luther King Day) for filing objections to the proposed ELNY Liquidation Petition and Restructuring Agreement; and

The announced ELNY "Hardship Fund" of at least $100 million (not a component of the Restructuring Agreement) created by a consortium of life insurance companies with a toll-free information line at 1-888-809-2254.

November 02, 2011

The online "Claims Journal" features an October 31, 2011 article (Claims Journal article) written by Denise Johnson titled "The Benefits of Using Structured Settlements in Claims Negotiations".

The Claims Journal article promotes the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) and incorporates structure-friendly quotes from NSSTA President Dan Finn, Chartis Vice President Ismael Acevedo and Jim Martin, CNA Vice President Commercial Liability Claims. Martin is also scheduled to speak this week at NSSTA's 2011 Fall Meeting in Austin, Texas on the topic of "Structured Settlements from a P&C Company's Point of View".

The Claims Journal article predictably provides a defense perspective of structured settlements based upon traditional (claim management) business models and business practices. For a summary of traditional structured settlement business model characteristics and the problems these business models create, see this prior S2KM blog post. For a discussion of traditional structured settlement business standards and practices, see "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" (S2P2J) section 6.02 [3].

The intended audience for the Claims Journal article can be assumed to be liability insurer claims personnel (executives, managers and adjustors) and perhaps also their outside litigation counsel. This intended audience therefore overlaps and includes members of the Council on Litigation Management (CLM).

CLM recently sponsored a National Litigation Management Study (CLM study) that highlighted structured settlements as the "most penetrated external initiative" among 30 litigation-related service areas analyzed based upon interviews with leading litigation management executives. Among the CLM study's key findings: "Litigation executives are not happy with the metrics and analytics available to them."

What stands out in the Claims Journal article, especially in the context of the CLM study's assertion about the need for improved metrics and analytics, are several statements about the benefits of structured settlements and the questionable rationale (or lack thereof) provided for such benefits. Structured settlement stakeholders have a history of promoting unsubstantiated and/or false statements. Two infamous examples:

Injury victims squander lump sums. Nine out of 10 lump sum recipients squander the entire amount within five years.

Structured settlements enable injury victims to live free of reliance on government assistance.

Here are three examples of unsubstantiated and/or misleading statements from the Claims Journal article:

The Claims Journal article: "At zero expense to the carrier ..... structured settlements are a powerful tool claims personnel can use when resolving claims."

Acevedo: structured settlement consultants: "understand the tax code and how to generate the benefits in the settlement context relative to the tax code,”

What is wrong with these statements?

One assumption appears to be that because "structured settlement consultants" are agents of, and paid commissions by, annuity providers, structured settlements generate "zero expense" for liability insurers. This assumption represents a non sequitur. It fails to consider the time and cost required for multiple claims adjustors and outside legal counsel to review multiple structured settlement proposals generated by structured settlement consultants or the related meetings and telephone conversations.

How should the structured settlement industry, liability insurers and the legal profession react to statements that structured settlement consultants "prepare settlement documents" and "understand the tax code and how to generated the benefits in the settlement context relative to the tax code"?

To quote the title from one of Mark Wahlstrom's blog posts: "Structured settlement brokers drafting settlement documents. Are you guys nuts?" In other words, does a routine structured settlement business practice that presumably saves expenses for liability insurers (life insurance agents drafting personal injury settlement documents) represent the unauthorized practice of law?

Consider another misleading or unsubstantiated statement from the Claims Journal article - Martin describing how defendants can utilize a structured settlement to resolve a disagreement over the cost of a life care plan: “So, if the plaintiff believes it’s ‘x’ and the defense says no it is only going to cost ‘y’, that issue can be taken off the table for the plaintiff by investing the ‘y’ number which will pay out the ‘x’ number they claim they need for the remainder of their lives."

What is wrong with this statement?

First, it appears that Martin's "x" represents both the plaintiff's present value number and the expected payout which confuses his example. Second, in today's low interest rate environment, Martin's structured settlement example won't accomplish his defense objective unless the case involves a substantial age rating, which the Claims Journal article never mentions.

Consider a 10 year old female with a normal life expectancy of approximately 69 years (to age 79) whose life care plan projects:

Annual medical costs of $10,000 for life;

A present value cost of approximately $690,000 (assuming a 5% discount and 5% inflationary growth rate) to pay

A projected $5,500,000 of total lifetime medical costs.

The cost of a structured settlement annuity to pay $10,000 per year increasing at 5% per year (without any age rating and with or without a guaranty period) is approximately $1,100,000 compared with the plaintiff's present value figure of $690,000 for the same projected damages. How does a structured settlement help Mr. Martin and CNA in this case? In non-age rated cases, with today's low interest rates, structured settlements generally will not help defendants argue or defend damages.

Related questions the Claims Journal article does not adequately address:

Why does CNA "flag claims for structures when they exceed $50,000 in exposure to our insured and involve bodily injury?"

What is CNA's expense resulting from its claim adjustors and outside legal counsel reviewing structured settlement proposals for those cases?

What is CNA's success ratio for resolving those cases with structured settlements?

How exactly can structured settlements "help drive the total claim outcome for [CNA's] claim operations"?

Does CNA reduce its claims costs using structured settlements? And if yes, how?

In another questionable statement, Martin maintains: "there are three things claimants seek in a settlement: 1) financial security; 2) guaranteed income; and 3) instructions on how to take advantage of any tax benefits." What about "qualifying for or maintaining government benefits" (Social Security; Medicaid; Medicare)? Is Martin's omission merely inadvertent or does it echo the false declaration that "structured settlements enable injury victims to live free of reliance on government assistance"?

For defendants and liability insurers who believe that structured settlements represent "good public policy" and who want to encourage its appropriate application for suitable injury victims and their dependents, it is time to re-think traditional structured settlement business models and practices. Despite (or perhaps because of) its faults, the Claims Journal article promoting structured settlements provides a valuable starting point for any such re-evaluation.

September 23, 2011

Why should defendants or liability insurers ever agree to settle a personal injury case using a structured settlement?

Although this question may seem counter intuitive to current structured settlement stakeholders, it represented a fundamental issue when structured settlements were introduced in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

The historic sales rationale for defendants and liability insurers to endorse, promote and fund structured settlements:

Studies show 9 out of 10 lump sum recipients "squander" their entire settlement within five years.

Structured settlements enable recipients to live free of public benefits.

Structured settlements reduce claim costs.

Structured settlements help defendants settle cases that would otherwise go to trial.

Structured settlements represent good public policy.

Although still marketed by some sales persons, the first two justifications for defendants and liability insurers to promote and fund structured settlements have been exposed as "myths" by Jeremy Babener and David Lillesand respectively. No studies exist that show 9 of 10 lump sum recipients dissipate their lump sums within five years. Worse, frequent use of the pejorative term "squander" in the context of this dissipation study myth attaches an unfair and unwarranted stigma to injury victims. Even assuming injury victims dissipate lump sums, the reasons could be as varied as payment for justifiable expenses with inadequate settlements (compared with actual lost wages, medical expenses and inflation) or pay down strategies to qualify for Medicaid.

The idea that seriously injured structured settlement recipients can survive without public benefits is nonsense - a Tea Party pipe dream. At least prior to health care reform, no insurance company would offer medical insurance at any price for brain damaged babies, serious burn victims, or quadriplegics. Medicaid represents the only medical insurance available for seriously injured (special needs) claimants whether they settle with a lump sum or a structured settlement. As underscored by Lillesand, "without Medicaid, seriously injured accident victims die" because they cannot gain access to our medical system without an insurance card. Completely contrary to this public benefit myth, how best to integrate structured settlements with Medicaid and Medicare represents an increasingly important focus for personal injury settlement planning.

Based upon the above sales rationale, however, most U.S. liability insurers and self-insured defendants have developed structured settlement programs. According to a 2011 "NationalLitigation Management study" commissioned by the Council on Litigation Management (Litigation Management Study), structured settlement represents the "most penetrated external initiative" among 30 litigation-related service areas analyzed based upon interviews with leading litigation management executives.

Commission sharing by the defense broker with the defendant or liability insurer. Note: such commission sharing generally utilizes a life insurance agency affiliated with the defendant or liability insurer and may or may not be disclosed to injury victims, their attorneys, mediators and/or judges.

The National Litigation Management Study also found that "litigation executives are not happy with the metrics and analytics available to them." When asked "how effective are your metrics in measuring the effectiveness of your litigation program", more than 74 percent of the study's participants rated their available metrics as "Fair" or worse. In the words of Mike Saltman, President of Esquire Corporate Solutions: "to be truly successful, national service programs must be able to deliver the very metrics and analytics that participants said they are seeking: quality, performance, and satisfaction levels. These are the metrics that a national service provider must be able to give to its clients in today's environment."

Many defense structured settlement programs do include performance metrics of which the most common are:

Note: some defense structured settlement programs also attempt to measure the cost savings resulting from the use of structured settlements.

Why, when and how should defendants or liability insurers ever agree to settle a personal injury case using a structured settlement?

Bottom line: to answer that question and to evaluate the "quality, performance and satisfaction" of their structured settlement programs, defendants and liability insurers should analyze (and perhaps re-think):

Program justification

Structured settlements reduce claims costs.

Structured settlements help defendants settle cases that would otherwise go to trial.

Structured settlements represent good public policy.

Program characteristics

Program metrics

Annuity premium generated by the structured settlement program.

Structured settlement success ratio.

Cost or cost savings.

S2KM will continue to discuss "structured settlement metrics" in subsequent blog posts which also will be featured on the structured settlement wiki.

June 14, 2011

Both the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) and the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) featured internet experts as part of their 2011 educational programs.

SSP's speakers, Mark Wahlstrom and Joe Didier, focused primarily on internet marketing and recommended expanded business use of web-based social media tools such as podcasts, blogs, Facebook, Twitter and Linkedin. Wahlstrom offered one especially insightful and negative cultural observation about the structured settlement industry as it attempts to transition from pre-internet to web-based business models, processes and skill sets: "We do not share ideas well in our industry."

NSSTA's speaker, LuAnn Reeb, also discussed internet marketing and social media tools in the context of "business communications today". Her emphasis, however, was more on the importance of learning web-based skill sets and how web-based conversations are replacing traditional one-directional marketing techniques.

How farstructured settlement stakeholders must still go to successfully transition their business to the Internet was summed up humorously by one SSP wag who asked speaker Didier at the conclusion of his presentation: "So, are you saying that this Internet thing is really important?"

Assuming the answer is "yes", neither SSP nor NSSTA has articulated any identifiable learning strategy to help members transition from pre-internet to web-based business models, processes and skill sets. At best, their 2011 educational programs will encourage some members to sign-up for Linkedin, Twitter, or Facebook.

S2KM comments and recommendations:

The structured settlement and settlement planning industries currently function primarily using old (pre-internet) business models, rules, skill sets, tools and culture.

Web-based business activity introduces new business rules, creates new business models and culture, and requires new skill sets and tools.

In the words of Kevin Kelly, an internet business pioneer: “as innovation accelerates, abandoning the highly successful in order to escape from its eventual obsolescence becomes the most difficult and yet most essential task.”

Advice for structured settlement and settlement planning stakeholders who consider themselves knowledge workers and want to successfully transition their knowledge and work processes to the internet - with or without assistance from SSP and NSSTA:

June 09, 2011

One of the notable features of the 2011 educational conferences sponsored by the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) and the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) was how relatively few speakers focused on traditional structured settlement issues.

Most of the other SSP and NSSTA 2011 educational speakers addressed structured settlements in the context of either:

Peripheral topics such as: strength of life companies; state guaranty associations; Executive Life of New York (ELNY); internet marketing; certification programs; and the sale of structured settlement payment rights; or

New settlement planning standards need to be identified and established. For example: definitions and vocabulary; knowledge requirements; professional planning team composition; roles and responsibilities; individual and integrated work product; product recommendation criteria; licensing and certification; business practices including compensation disclosure, conflicts of interest and informed consent; documentation; and financing products and mechanisms.

QSFs and structured settlements can improve settlement planning and therefore should be considered in every complex personal injury case.

June 06, 2011

The purpose of this blog post is to compare structured settlements and personal injury settlement planning. As noted in an earlier S2KM blog post, the transition from structured settlements to settlement planning is one of three fundamental transitions reshaping the structured settlement industry. The other two fundamental transitions:

From a singular, illiquid, and non-assignable product to multiple products with greater flexibility to address changing needs and circumstances of injury victims;

From traditional (pre-Internet) to web-based business models, processes and skill sets.

As summarized in this history diagram, structured settlements and the structured settlement industry have experienced significant changes since structured settlements were first utilized in the United States during the late 1970s including:

The secondary market;

468B qualified settlement funds;

Integration with Medicare and Medicaid; and

Integration with settlement trusts.

This transaction diagram demonstrates how, as an integrated product, structured settlements have become increasingly complex legally and financially with multiple stakeholders and documents.

One result of this increased integration and complexity has been the evolution of structured settlements from a stand alone product into a core product for a more comprehensive profession called "settlement planning" - which some participants refer to alternatively as "settlement consulting" or "special needssettlement planning".

Although no statutory or standard definitions exist for settlement planning, leading practitioners and advocates, including Jack Meligan and Joseph DiGangi, have offered their own definitions and explanations. In addition, the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) has adopted the "Standards of Professional Conduct for Settlement Planners" and offers a Registered Settlement Planner (RSP) certification program.

"Settlement Planning is the modern day [holistic] approach to assisting personal injury (and other types of) claimants with the personal, and highly unique, financial planning decisions surrounding the settlement of their claim.

"Settlement Planning starts from the premise that structured settlements are not the answer to everything that everyone needs or wants to do with their settlement dollars.

"Using that as a starting point, the first in a long line of questions for any personal injury claimant to answer is: 'What do you want this settlement to accomplish for you? What is the most important thing? Then, what is the, second most important, third most important, etc'.

"Only after you, as the claimant, answer the question above should you really begin to craft a plan to help you reach those goals."

DiGangi spoke about "settlement consulting" at the 2009 Winter Meeting of the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA).

In what he termed "a wake up call for the industry", DiGangi criticized the traditional structured settlement business model and knowledge standards.

He also outlined his vision for industry transition, improvement and growth which he termed "comprehensive settlement consulting".

DiGangi characterized the current structured settlement industry as "a stagnant market" based upon an outdated "annuity broker" business model. Structured settlement clients and competitors, according to DiGangi, share negative perceptions about structured settlement consultants. As examples of negative perceptions, DiGangi cited the industry's single product offering and limited knowledge base.

As an alternative to the "annuity broker" structured settlement business model, DiGangi proposed a "consultant" model with multiple products and services providing added value for, and with, other settlement stakeholders.

Characteristics of DiGangi's settlement consulting model:

Planning orientation;

Solutions before products;

Blended products and services;

Product neutrality;

Compensation disclosure;

Professional training and designations;

Comprehensive skill sets and knowledge base.

During his 2009 NSSTA presentation, DiGangi also highlighted several transitional issues: licensing; conflicts of interest; collaboration models; and work process infrastructure.

S2KM will summarize and evaluate how SSP and NSSTA addressed "settlement planning" during their 2011 Annual Meeting educational conferences in a subsequent and related blog post.

Timothy Morbach of The Settlement Services Group (TSSG) developed the linked diagrams in this blog post. TSSG is an affiliate and strategic partner of S2KM Limited. Viewers can enlarge the diagrams to improve their visibility.

May 22, 2011

This blog post begins S2KM's reporting and outlines results from the 2011 annual meetings of the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP - May 15-17) and the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA - May 18-20).

May 05, 2011

Concurrent with the 25th Anniversary of the original publication of "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" (S2P2J), publisher Law Journal Press (an ALM affiliate) has announced S2P2J's availability in an online digital format as part of "Law Journal Press Online", a broad new digital catalog of legal publications, versatile online research tools, expanded content, and updated pricing models.

Co-authored by Daniel Hindert, Joseph Dehner and Patrick Hindert, S2P2J has been the leading legal textbook for structured settlements since 1986. Both the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) and the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) feature S2P2J in their respective certification programs.

Law Journal Press Online was developed with Learning Mate, one of the world’s leaders in e-learning technologies for publishers

“Law Journal Press Online will radically alter the way in which our subscribers conduct research and the way in which law librarians manage our content,” according to Sara Diamond, a Law Journal Press Group Vice President. “We researched the way lawyers and librarians find, use and annotate their information and developed functionality which feels familiar and intuitive. Combine this with our content and a powerful search engine and you have a formidable resource.”

The new online version of S2P2J offers subscribers:

Instant access via the web and mobile devices to the complete text of S2P2J's print editions, with the latest updates added automatically.

All-inclusive annual pricing - including all updates with no additional charges.

Powerful research functionality, including the ability to highlight, bookmark, annotate, organize, print or export research.

Law Journal Press instructions for current hardcopy S2P2J subscribers - who can receive immediate access to the online version:

If you purchased S2P2J through LawCatalog.com, log in on the home page with your existing LawCatalog.com user name and password. If you do not know your login credentials for LawCatalog.com, email mdallatana@alm.com or call 212-457-7736.

If you purchased S2P2J by phone and invoice, you should have already received a temporary user name and password. To get started, simply log in with the temporary credentials (located above your name on the mail label) at www.lawjournalpress.com and click Login using the login panel to go to the registration form. For assistance with this, email ljpcustomercare@lawjournalpress.com or call 877-256-2472.

April 05, 2011

Publisher American Lawyer Media (ALM) has announced May 1, 2011 as the distribution date for Release 49 of "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" (S2P2J). First published in 1986, S2P2J is co-authored and updated semi-annually by Daniel W. Hindert, Joseph J. Dehner and Patrick J. Hindert. Both the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) and the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) utilize S2P2J as an educational resource for their certification programs.

S2P2J Release 49 Highlights

Expanded guidance on Medicare reimbursement procedures including:

A new section on how the Medicare Secondary Payer rules affect plaintiffs, defendants, plaintiffs’ attorneys and insurers; and

How each such case participant can comply with increasing government efforts to recoup prior payments from settlements.

How allocations in settlement agreements affect a claimant's tax treatment.